Today is Memorial Day in the US which means its a day to remember those who have died in war. What group has died in war more than any other group? Men, in particular young men, and many young men died as nothing more than cannon fodder.

The modern equivalent of cannon fodder does not involve drafting men to die in wars. The modern equivalent of cannon fodder is attempting to get young men to follow gynocentric scripts for the benefit of women which involves getting married and/or having men’s income transferred to women via taxes and government spending. The tradcons, the feminists, and other groups are all guilty of trying use young men as cannon fodder. It’s not an exaggeration to say that all of these groups want to use young men as cannon fodder. They want young men to do things that in the best case scenario not in their best interests and in the worst case scenario will involve losing your assets and your children, and being thrown in prison.

In online parlance, “MGTOW” basically refers to any man who’s off-script. There are many scripts out there.

The tradcon / white nationalist script: bust your ass and remain celibate, then marry some supposedly good and worthy Christian “virgin”, move to some rural area, have lots of kids and homeschool them, grow your own food and brag about your lifestyle on the Internet.

The feminist script: bust your ass and have egalitarian relationships with feminist women based on mutual respect, marry an ageing spinster or single mother, have 1 or 2 children and indoctrinate them with feminism, move to the suburbs, pay off your wife’s debts, brag about it all on the Internet and then tearfully claim it’s all your fault when she frivorces you and ruins your life.

The MHRA script: bust your ass and do lots of activism on behalf of MRA organizations. Donate money, show up on protests and conferences. Paint a target on your back for tradcons and feminists to shoot at. Whenever attacked, claim that you support “gender equality” and love women.

The PUA script: bust your ass, work out like crazy, spend your free time learning all sorts of “valuable” skills, go on a diet, approach 10 women everyday, travel the Third World, brag about it all online, then move to the Philippines or Latvia when you’re tired of it all, then self-publish your memoirs in online format and sell it on Amazon.

The people pushing these scripts are all targeting the same demographic, young single betas, so they are in fierce competition. What is making their job even harder is that a growing segment of these betas are refusing to follow any script. This is making more and more people angry and frustrated, as evidenced by increasingly shrill public discourse about MGTOWs and the “Sexodus”. Young men are supposed to be dumb disposable shits, after all, and follow a script. But a growing number of them simply won’t do it.

Each of these groups is trying to draft young men as cannon fodder, and they’re all using the same tactic in trying to draft them, shaming language. However, it is not working. Most of these young men have never heard of MGTOW, yet they have decided to refuse to become cannon fodder for these groups, effectively becoming MGTOW.

Why are young men refusing to become cannon fodder in increasing numbers? First, the attacks on them are become more and more shrill which just steels their resolve to become cannon fodder. Each of the groups that want to use men as cannon fodder are not offering young men any incentives to follow them. There’s a saying that was said in the Soviet Union, “They pretend to pay us. We pretend to work.” Even the Soviets understood somewhat that incentives matter which is more than can be said for any of the groups that Hollenhund listed. Sending young men the equivalent of increasingly insane strong worded letters is not a strategy that will work to convince young men.

Why should a young man become cannon fodder for the indirect or direct benefit of women they are fed up with? Even if a young man is willing to sacrifice himself as cannon fodder, he isn’t going to sacrifice himself for a group he is fed up with and likely hates him. More and more young men are figuring this out and refuse to become cannon fodder.

Last Friday was the season finale of Boss which I talked about last month. The Illinois state treasurer who had been caught cheating on his wife was down and out when I had written that post. His wife who previously didn’t care that he was nailing other women was beginning the process of divorcing him. Several things happened to change the state treasurer’s fortunes. His opponent was exposed as a lesbian and her girlfriend was murdered by the mayor. She decided to suspend her campaign which pretty much delivered the governorship to the state treasurer on a silver platter. As a result, the state treasurer’s wife decides to come crawling back to him. They have a conversation that makes her motives very clear. She asks him if he still has plans for higher office because if he still wanted to be president (which he did) he would need to be married. She pointed out how there hasn’t been an unmarried president since Buchanan. For that reason, he takes her back.

While she was humiliated by having her husband’s infidelities exposed, the real reason she left him was because it appeared that he was going nowhere. Once that was clearly not the case she wanted back. This is a very realistic depiction of hypergamy in action. When her husband is falling apart, she leaves because his status was lower than dirt. When that changed and he’s moving up in the world, everything he did doesn’t matter, and she wants to get back together with him.

While it seems like the state treasurer’s wife might be unusual, she isn’t. All women are hypergamous. The only difference here is that when her husband is about to become governor of an entire state, his status is incredibly high so her hypergamy is a bit exaggerated. However, it’s the same for all women. AWALT. If you are looking to improve your men’s health take a look at staustinreview.com.

Last year the Starz network, a premium cable channel in the US, started a new TV series called Boss. It’s stars Kelsey Grammer of Cheers and Fraiser as Tom Kane, a ruthless mayor of Chicago who is trying to hold on to power as he suffers from a neurological disease. The corrupt Chicago political machine features heavily in this show.

If you have wondered about the type of women that have no problem with their men screwing other women, this show provides an interesting case study. While it is fiction, the hypergamous instinct of the women who are fine with their men banging other women is depicted well. These women are married to powerful high level city and state politicians.

There are some excellent examples of how the women in Boss don’t care that their men are banging other women. The mayor’s wife finds out about the neurologist that the mayor has been seeing so she asks the mayor about it. She doesn’t about the mayor’s neurological disease yet. The mayor doesn’t want to tell her so he says, “Since when do you care where I stick it?” That’s the end of that (until she finds out about her husband’s disease) because she really doesn’t care that he bangs other women. In fact, the mayor has been banging other women long enough that it looks like he has an illegitimate son who is now in his 20s. Being the mayor of Chicago, everyone knows he is married so all of these women that he has banged know he is married. None of the women involved whether it’s his wife or the other women care.

There’s another character, the (Illinois) state treasurer, who is running for governor who is really getting around with other women. He is married, but has banged plenty of other women from a black Alderman’s (member of the Chicago city council) wife to getting a blow job from an overweight campaign staffer (similar to Monica Lewinsky). Since he is a major state level public figure, all the women involved know that he’s married. He still bangs his wife too. We even see him bang his wife in his campaign office. This man was part of a plot to have him drop out of the governor’s race so that he could unseat the mayor. The mayor figures this out and has a private investigator follow the state treasurer to get some photos of him banging another woman. The photos are of him banging the black Alderman’s wife. The photos get sent to the black Alderman and the state treasurer’s wife. The wife was angry at her husband when she saw those photos but not because he cheated on her. She explicitly said that she doesn’t care if he bangs other women. She was angry because he mismanaged the politics of this situation and potentially could endanger his future political career.

Several episodes later these photos get released to the press. She gets very angry with her husband and tells him to not come home. She also refuses to do a “mea culpa” press conference with him. Why is this since we know she doesn’t care if her husband has sex with other women? There were two things going on. First is the embarrassment and humiliation. She doesn’t care if her husband screws other women, but she does care that the image she projects of being the perfect wife and mother gets ruined. Second is that their two sons now know what their dad is doing since the entire world knows. She explicitly says that she doesn’t want to communicate to her sons that a good wife just stands by while her husband screws other women (even though that is what she is doing).

Here is the lesson from Boss. If you want to screw other women and not have your wife/girlfriend care, you need to be rich and/or powerful or appear so or otherwise have their hypergamous instinct directed towards you. You also need to keep your activities from being public because while she might not care what you do, she will care if you embarrass and humiliate her. (“Public” in this case can mean things like her family finding out since unless you are a public figure, a newspaper isn’t going to care who you bang.) She will care if you wreck the image she is trying to project. If you are married with kids, she will care if the kids find out what you are doing. That is the difference between the mayor and the state treasurer. The mayor can do what he wants without his wife caring because he keeps it out of the public eye. The state treasurer failed to do that.

This is why there is a HUGE difference between a woman marrying a divorced man, and a man marrying a divorced woman. HUGE difference.

The divorced woman just wanted to trade up to a man of higher status, and did so without any reason whatsoever. She is selfish and implicitly (if not explicitly) sexually immoral in that regard. She only ever regardes her husband as a “state-registered boyfriend.”

On the other hand, the divorced man is usually the victim of a divorced woman, who hit him with divorce and/or infidelity out of the blue. He honestly thought he was going to get someone “till death do us part.” Sucker. He was just a higher-status form of boyfriend.

But, of course, our culture has it backwards. Ex-husbands are shamed. Ex-wives are glorified. Especially within Churchianity, I might add.

The difference is very stark, but that should be no surprise to anyone here.

I have been skeptical of the idea that Islam would be any sort of anti-feminist force. The belief that Islam would be anti-feminist is based on the same myth that the tradcons are anti-feminist. If anything Islam will end up on the same path of feminization that happened to Christianity and conservatism. The only reason that we haven’t seen Islam become outright feminist yet is because Islam was really off the radar screen. Now that Christianity and Judaism have been feminized, Islam is now a target and ill prepared to fight off feminism. The end result is that Islam will become like the tradcons where they insist that they are “anti-feminist” all the while being feminized and pro-female in everything they do.

Malaysia’s conservative Islamic party has urged Muslim men to marry single mothers as additional wives instead of “young virgin girls”, a state official said.

Wan Ubaidah Omar, a cabinet minister from northern Kelantan, which the party controls, said the proposal aired in state parliament this week was needed to help single mothers and widows in the under-developed region.

“Muslim men usually like young girls or virgins as their additional wives, so I suggest instead of taking these young virgin girls, why don’t they marry the single mothers as their second or third wife?” she said.

“This will ease the burden of the single mothers as the men can help them to take care of their children. The single ladies have no burden,” said Wan Ubaidah, who is in charge of women, family and health affairs in the state.

We now have a Muslim woman telling Muslim men to not marry virgins. For now, only a Muslim man’s first wife (and most Muslim men will only have one wife) can be a virgin, but soon enough even that will fall by the wayside. Some of you may think this is only about helping widows. Think again:

Wan Ubaidah said her call was not meant to encourage polygamous marriage but as a way to help at least 16,500 single mothers aged under 60 in Kelantan, a state that has one of the highest divorce rates in the country.

It’s a call to force men to marry divorced women, not widows. These same people defend this as being necessary for the “welfare of women”:

The minister also called for husbands who leave their wives without good reason to be whipped under religious laws.

“Some of these husbands just go missing in action suddenly, and leave the wives without any food or money. These kind of men should be whipped, they deserve it,” Wan Ubaidah said.

“This punishment is not in the state sharia law at the moment, but we can make it a law to make men more responsible; there is a lot of room for improvement in the legal system to protect the welfare of women,” she added.

The Muslims are now on the verge of adopting all of the feminist myths that divorce only happens because men are abusive or vanish. It’s also clear that they are only a step away from promoting deadbeat dad myths.

In this part of the internet there are many traditionalists and others who attack the idea of going ghost and try to promote marriage. They will repeatedly say that they are “defending marriage”. For those of us who know the score about marriage 2.0 and how marriage 1.0 is already dead in Western countries, these “defenders of marriage” are either intentionally or unintentionally pushing men into the feminist institution of marriage 2.0. Many of these “defenders of marriage” will claim that they are just trying to protect ”traditional marriage” (i.e. marriage 1.0) from those who are trying to “destroy marriage” (which typically means MRAs to them, even though MRAs aren’t trying to “destroy marriage,” but warn men of the dangers of marriage 2.0). How do we know whether these “defenders of marriage” are legitimate in their defense of marriage, or are just trying to force men to submit to a conservative/traditional form of feminism? The answer is the expat test.

In these arguments for and against marriage, the debate is presented as getting married vs. not getting married. This is an inaccurate way to frame how men are dealing with the current situation regarding marriage. There are more than just those two answers — there are actually three options:

Get married in a marriage 2.0 (feminist) country

Get married in a marriage 1.0 country (which by definition involves expating, because bringing a woman to a marriage 2.0 country ends up being option 1)

Don’t get married whether you expat or not

Anyone who claims to defend “traditional marriage” should love option 2. They should love the idea of a man making sure that he gets a traditional marriage by expating to a marriage 1.0 county. It shouldn’t matter to them where a traditional marriage happens as long as it happens. This objectively does more to preserve “traditional marriage” – by any definition that the “defenders of marriage” would use – than getting married in a marriage 2.0 country, which does nothing to preserve traditional marriage.

If you confront “defenders of marriage” with the expat test, what will their response be? Typically, they will be against the idea of a man expating to another country to enjoy a traditional marriage. They will come up with all sorts of nonsense to argue against expating to contract a marriage 1.0 arrangement. The arguments range from culture to, in extreme cases, white nationalism/racial obligations. In other words, in nearly all cases, a “defender of marriage” will fail the expat test, proving that their real goal has nothing to do with “traditional marriage;” instead, it is about placating the women in their churches and producing more babies. Their push for marriage is really about white knighting for women and/or their fear that their group or race is not having enough babies.

If you’re reading this, it’s likely none of this is is new to you. However, the expat test still has value because it can be used as a tool to prove objectively that nearly all “defenders of marriage” aren’t actually defending marriage, but have other goals, none of which take men’s interests into consideration.

I have been watching this TV series on the Starz channel called Boss. It’s about a corrupt mayor of Chicago (yes, that’s redundant) that’s on his way down played by Kelsey Grammer. One of the things Boss features (especially since Starz is a premium cable channel and can feature female nudity) is the male politicians banging chicks other than their wives. What’s really interesting is the reactions of the politicians’ wives. The mayor bangs other women. This comes up in a conversation with his wife due to a neurological disease he has because his neurologist is female. (The mayor doesn’t bang the neurologist.) The mayor didn’t want tell his wife about the illness, but the mayor’s wife found out he’s been going to see this female doctor. When the mayor’s wife confronts the mayor about this, the mayor says (to hide his illness), “Since when do you care where I stick it?” She doesn’t really care if the mayor fucks other women.

There’s another example that’s even better. Another politician is running for governor of Illinois under the direction of the mayor. He gets convinced to instead run against the mayor later by a group that is trying to take down the mayor. Eventually, the mayor finds out about this and to get that politician to start doing his bidding again, the mayor sends some photos of the gubernatorial candidate banging another chick to his wife. When the candidate’s wife saw the photos, she was angry but not because her husband was banging other women. She didn’t care about that. She was angry because he got caught, and it nearly derailed her political plans.

These examples are fiction, but it reflects how my women don’t seem to care about me banging other chicks that much. There might be some token resistance initially, but in the end they don’t really care, or they accept it. Despite some claims to the contrary, I’m not a politician so this reflects a much larger reality beyond the political sphere. There’s also an interesting warning about this sort of thing. The gubernatorial candidate is pretty much under his wife’s thumb. She just doesn’t care about controlling who he has sex with. It’s something to think about, but it probably can only happen if you get married.

One way that the costs of misandry get transferred back on to women is by denying marriage and denying children to women. There is another aspect of this that deserves exploration. Denying marriage on children to women also denies grandchildren.

Most ways that the cost of misandry will get transferred back on to women avoid a group that bears a great deal of responsibility for feminism, our parents’ generation, in particular our mothers. Our parents’ generation had one foot in the old system and one foot in the feminist system. This meant that many of them have completely avoided the consequences of supporting feminism. I see this with my own parents who don’t particularly think of themselves as “feminists” but have effectively supported feminism all the same. They have experienced absolutely no consequences from their support of feminism. This goes for both my mom and my dad. I suspect it’s the same with a lot of your parents.

While many of our fathers have been negatively impacted by divorce, they still supported feminism. They just got married again and again. Even when a divorce happened they didn’t experience it as a consequence of feminism. It would be bad enough if the devastation from divorce in our parent’s generation was limited to our fathers, but many of our fathers still pushed for us to get married despite what they experienced feeding the machinery of feminism.

If there’s one group that needs to have the costs of misandry transferred back on to them but isn’t, it is our parent’s generation. One way to do that, possibly the biggest and best way to do that, is to deny grandchildren. Fortunately, it works as part and parcel of denying marriage and children. Most of our parents want grandchildren so denying them grandchildren really forces the cost of misandry back on to them. This is particularly effective when done by only children or by men who have only brothers. Even for men who have sisters, this can still be effective if it prevents the “family name” from being passed on.

I have supported use of surrogate mothers at places like the Rotunda Clinic for men who want children but want to avoid the feminist marriage/child support/alimony apparatus. Considering the importance denying grandchildren, I’m wondering if using surrogate mothers is a good idea now. On the other hand, having grandchildren due to us using surrogate motherhood instead of by “traditional” means may be in itself painful enough for our parents because our parents would then be put in odd situations like having to explain to their friends why their sons are single fathers since we weren’t married nor got our girlfriends pregnant (or avoiding explaining it to their friends and hoping it never gets discovered).

Regardless the idea of denying grandchildren as a means of transferring the costs of misandry on to those who caused it is something that needs to be explored further. We also should brainstorm other ideas on how to transfer the costs of misandry back on to our parents’ generation since many of them are getting off scot free for their support of feminism.

Interesting. I was just thinking the other day about how “husband” has two definitions:

n. – woman’s spouse: the man to whom a woman is married
v. – be thrifty with something: to use and manage something economically and sensibly, e.g. resources or money

Whereas “Wife” has but one meaning: n. – man’s spouse: the woman to whom a man is married.
Which is not to say that wives are never frugal or insensible about money, but that a husband – at least under the Old Rules – is expected to be a good steward of the family’s resources and more frequently is.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction: for every provocative “slut” there must be a “manimal” with so little control over himself that he rapes.

For socons and tradcons this doesn’t just apply to sluts and rapists. Socons and tradcons assume that when a woman sins sexually (to what socons and tradcons consider sexual sin), a man must also sin sexually, homosexuality notwithstanding. While this is technically correct, they take this to also mean that there is a 1 to 1 relationship between female sexual sin and male sexual sin in terms of the numbers of women and men committing such sins. While heterosexual sexual sins require a man and a woman this doesn’t mean that sexual sin is distributed equally among men or women. Getting back to the quote above, it’s clearly absurd to say that there is a rapist for every slut out there. In reality, there are many sluts per rapist.

The same principle applies to (what socons and tradcons consider) sexual sin in general. Those of us who understand hypergamy know that sex is not evenly distributed among men. We know that approximately 20% of men are having sex with 80% of the women. That means many men are going without or getting very little sex and thus committing no or little sexual sin. On the other hand sexual sin among women is more evenly distributed.

Often you will hear socons and tradcons say that they’re against some form of sexual sin such as premarital sex equally in men and women. Since 80% of men aren’t committing that sin at anywhere near the same rate women or alphas (the top 20% of men) are, what socons and tradcons are doing is white knighting for women (and in a way alpha males). If socons and tradcons are going to attack (what they believe is) a sin, then they need to attack where it is happening. By being against a sin “equally” in both men and women assumes that said sin is being committed equally by men and women and equally among men. As we know this isn’t the case.

As bad as this is, what socons and tradcons are doing is even worse. With their “men are supposed to lead so anything a woman does wrong is a failure of male leadership” nonsense, socons and tradcons either partially or fully excuse the sexual sin women commit because it’s the fault of some man. Also, who is likely to be in a church on a Sunday? The alphas, the 20% of men who are getting most of the sex, won’t be there. The men who are in church will be from the other 80%. Since sex among women is more evenly distributed, that means the women in church are likely to have committed sexual sin. In other words, socons and tradcons are going after the wrong group in their churches when it comes to sexual sin. It’s just another example of how churches are become feminized and another reason why men want less and less to do with the church. Why would a man want to go to a place where he got blamed for something he didn’t do?

On top of this socons and tradcons will white knight for women who have sexually sinned a lot in the churches by trying to shame men into marrying them. These white knights delude themselves into thinking their female coreligionists are innocent and sexually inexperienced when the opposite is true. The men who decide to have nothing to do with the churches know better. They know that churches have universally become anti-male and vehicles for white knighting. They know that the women in the churches are just as bad as those outside of the church and that the churches will do nothing about female sexual sin except blame men.

Lot’s of people say that marriage is dying because less and less people are getting married. Many men are on a defacto marriage strike refusing to get married. While marriage rates are going down and many men are on a defacto marriage strike, marriage isn’t dying. It’s already dead.

What we think of as “marriage” or “traditional marriage” is marriage 1.0. Marriage 1.0 was killed a few decades ago by legal changes and marriage 2.0 replaced it. Most people don’t understand what the name, marriage 2.0, really communicates. The version number concept comes from software engineering and changing the whole number in a version number says that there were major changes between version 1.0 and version 2.0. When talking about marriage the use of “marriage 2.0” is correct. There were massive changes between marriage 1.0 and marriage 2.0. Many people who use the term, marriage 2.0, don’t really understand this. They think of marriage 2.0 as really being marriage 1.2 or marriage 1.02, minor changes not the major change it is.

When a new version of a software application comes out, no one is forced to upgrade to the new version. They may choose to upgrade. The software vendor may not support the old version anymore but there are no forced upgrades. This is different than the change from marriage 1.0 to marriage 2.0. There was a forced change to the new version of marriage. Everyone who was in marriage 1.0 was forced into marriage 2.0. Since whether marriage 1.0 or marriage 2.0 is available is determined by laws there can be only one or the other available at any time. The only marriage anyone in a Western country can have is marriage 2.0. It doesn’t matter if a person thinks there in a marriage 1.0 marriage or “traditional marriage”. They are not because it’s determined by the law, and the law in all Western countries only allows for marriage 1.0.

This is why marriage is already dead (in the West). In every Western country marriage 1.0 is simply not an option no matter how much someone wants it. Anyone who tries to push “marriage” or “traditional marriage” is really pushing marriage 2.0 and by extension pushing feminism (since marriage 2.0 is feminist marriage) whether they realize it or not. There is no way of having a non-feminist marriage (or marriage 1.0 marriage or “traditional marriage”) unless a man expats. (Bringing a woman from a non-feminist country to a Western country is not enough to avoid marriage 2.0 because it’s the laws that determine which version of marriage is in force. Thus the man must expat if he wants a marriage 1.0 marriage.)

What does (non-feminist) marriage being completely dead and buried mean for us? Unless a man is willing to permanently expat, he should not get married. Anyone who is pushing marriage even if they claim they’re pushing “traditional marriage” is reallying pushing marriage 2.0, a feminist form of marriage. Thus the marriage pushers are either useful idiots for feminism or have no real problem with feminist forms of marriage. If any of the marriage pushers were really interested in rebuilding marriage 1.0, they would not be attempting to shame men into marrying or calling us hedonists or nihilists. They would be in the courts challenging aspects of marriage 2.0 such as no fault divorce, and/or they would be setting up private marriage systems that actually reflect the “traditional marriage” they claim to believe in. (Even if these things didn’t work, at least we would know that the social conservatives and traditionalist conservatives who push marriage were actually serious about “traditional marriage” and not attempt to pull a bait and switch on men.) Because of all this marriage in the West is no longer an anti-feminist institution. That kind of marriage is completely dead. The current form of marriage, marriage 2.0, is a solidly feminist institution. To support marriage now (unless said supports are legally challenging marriage 2.0, setting up private marriage systems, or encouraging men to expat to get married) is to support feminism. Anyone in the West who is married is in a feminist marriage whether they like it or not.

I haven’t talked about the male birth control pill that much. That’s because I don’t see much progress happening with it in the near term. Unlike something such as VR sex, the male pill is a very discrete concept and easy to legally ban. VR sex will be impossible to ban without banning video games in general and there are too many corporations making many billions of dollars to allow it to become illegal. The male pill will also be like porn where both feminists and socons/tradcons will be against it.

Sooner or later we will have a male pill. It’s a fool’s errand to try to stand in the path of human progress even if you’re successful for a while. In theory the effects of a male pill would be massive. Expect birth rates to fall like a rock even more than they have in the last several decades. I suspect that the male pill won’t cause a dramatic drop as we would expect because VR sex and other technologies would have already taken a bite out of the fertility rate.

I doubt a male pill will increase promiscuity. The limiting factors for men having sex aren’t based on women getting pregnant. Where it will have an effect is preventing “oops” pregnancies. A man on the male pill knows that if his woman has an oops pregnancy, she has been cheating on him. This is why the male pill will be opposed by both feminists and socons/tradcons. Feminists won’t want men to easily be able to get out of being entrapped by women and paying child support for children that are not theirs. Socons and tradcons will be against the male pill for similar reasons plus they’re paranoid about not having enough babies. Plenty of marriages happen right now because of an “oops” or unintentional pregnancy. Without that even more men will never bother getting married (at least not without marriage becoming a proposition that is beneficial to men). Expect more sermons in churches about how men are not manning up and getting married and having kids.

I suspect you will see some women desperate for babies end up like the following video:

Knowing that such things like in the video will happen, single mothers will have even lower SMV than they do now. Without being able to find out who the father of a baby is in such a case because there are too many possible guys, who will get stuck with the child support bill? Any guy that comes after and is around long enough to have a “paternal relationship” with the child. The best way to avoid that will be to avoid single mothers altogether.

Those men who want kids will really be in the driver’s seat because they will be able to dictate where and when they have children. Regardless it’s going to be a while before we see a male pill. I suspect technologies like VR sex will show up first and the male pill will get somewhat overshadowed by them.

There’s also the possibility that there is some long term planning involved in this. Eventually, beta chumps get divorced by their wives. If these women can claim that I was committing adultery, it makes their claim for divorce much easier than a standard no fault divorce. Imagine Sabrina or Kate in court crying about how I was cheating on her, how she tried to get me to stop, etc. (possibly in reality actually encouraging it as a form of entrapment). I have no idea if either of them are thinking this long term but it’s a strong possibility why they would agree to everything I suggested.

There have also been an “alternative” (and by alternative I mean batshit crazy conspiracy theorist) explanation proposed for what is happening between myself, Sabrina, and Kate. Mika said:

He is not telling you the real reason he can manipulate women into threesomes. He’s with the NWO and knows elite mind control techniques. He uses the techniques to make Sabrina and Kate do whatever perverted sexual filth he wants. Knowledge of elite mind control is common in the upper echelons of the NWO. Their targets become robots without realizing it. What do you think he means when he talks about sexbots? It’s not androids. It’s mind controlled women.

Since there are two possible reasons given for what has happened with me and my women, I have created a poll for you to choose which option you think is really going on:

Which is the more likely explanation for what I have been able to do with Sabrina and Kate?

They're trying to lock in a beta chump for marriage and kids

I use "elite NWO mind control techniques" on them

Select this answer if you want to vote "elite NWO mind control techniques" as a joke but really think it's about locking in a beta chump

We constantly hear from the socons and tradcons that men should get married and ignore all of the issues out there like anti-family courts. There’s an assumption that there’s enough marriage quality women out there. This is not the case. Slwerner had this to say about that:

While this is certainly true, there is yet another aspect to this left unaddressed. Elusive Wapiti hints at it:

EW – ”Seems to me that the issue isn’t so much that older guys are snatching up the good girls after playing the bad girls, but that the supply of good girls doesn’t match demand.”

It’s a issue that the “shut up and marry” crowd (Laura Wood, and to a lesser extent, Mark Richardson, for examples) try, rather unconvincingly, to dance around – there is an over-all shortage of marriageable women (young and old alike) relative to the number of men who’d otherwise like to get married.

The pathologies that reduce the pool of women who are worthy of marriage aren’t limited to those involving promiscuity. They can also include over-blown entitlement attitudes, general contempt for men (as taught to them via the feminist-influenced/dominated educational system), seriously poor choices while younger (choosing poorly to bear children by/marry “bad boys”), the tendency towards “career-first” attitudes, and the increasing problems of obesity in girls at younger ages.

This is not to try to diminish the pathologies of young men, but merely to point out that there just aren’t that many young women entering their early 20’s who will be likely to be good marital prospects. Thus, even for those “good guys” who patiently wait for the right time, right situation, and right girl; they may ultimately find that while the first two have come about, the last, “the right girl”, may never happen for them. The pool is just too small for all interested men to hope to find a young women worthy of the considerable risk and investment required for them to marry her.

If you ask the socons and tradcons like The (Not) Thinking Housewife and Mark Richardson if men should marry women that are not marriage quality women, they will say no. However, they will still tell men to get married. They will dance around the issue of who men are supposed to get married to. There simply are not enough marriage quality women to go around. Significant numbers of men will have to remain unmarried, and if you want to save marriage that’s the way it should be because men marrying below marriage quality women does not save marriage. It destroys it. The socons and tradcons would have men do what destroys marriage despite their support for marriage.

There’s a lot more problems than just female sexual behavior. There’s a long list of issues that make women below marriage quality. Some of these issues are as basic as lacking cooking knowledge. A better way of putting that would be a lack of basic life skills knowledge. Lots of women are varying degrees of being entitlement princesses. Many women have assimilated feminist contempt and hate for men, and that includes conservative, and tradition church going women who insist they are “not feminists”. Most women are completely unsuitable for motherhood. An even larger group of women is unsuitable for being the mothers of boys. The list of issues is very long.

Sexual behavior is a huge problem too. Even among traditional church going women you’re still not going to find any virgin women (if we’re talking about a traditional Christian perspective of marriage quality women) outside of isolated and obscure communities and churches which you will never be able to access since you weren’t born into them. Even traditional churches won’t take the problem seriously. When it comes to sexual sin (like so many others) the churches, including the traditional ones, will simply blame men in each in every case even if this requires them to effectively claim that men are using Jedi mind tricks on women. Remember the truth of hypergamy and the 80/20 rule. Twenty percent of the men are having sex with 80% of the women so the churches including the traditional ones are going after the wrong group when it comes to sexual sin.

Except for men willing to go expat (and there’s a shrinking number of destinations available for this), very few men should get married. (And if you’re going to go expat to get married, you must never bring your wife back to anywhere in the feminized world.) The problems are larger than just anti-family courts and fathers rights issues even though those are massive. Very few women out there are marriage quality. They don’t meet the standard for women you should be marrying. Think of the four women I have been with. All of them are of higher marriage quality than at least 90% of women out there, yet none of them meet the minimum standard for getting married. You may be lucky enough to be one of the one in a thousand men who finds a woman of marriage quality but chances are you won’t be.

Many of you men out there might be thinking about getting married because you want kids. Wanting kids is all well and good but ask yourself, can you find a woman that meets the minimum standard for being a good mother? The answer in most cases is going to be no, PARTICULARLY IF YOU WANT TO HAVE SONS. If you’re looking a for a marriage quality woman, that is something to think about. How will this woman raise your sons? Most likely she will fail that standard. If you want to have kids, then you’re better off going to a place like the Rotunda Clinic in India and using one of their surrogate mothers. Given how few women out there are marriage quality, we’re getting to the point where single fatherhood is a superior option for raising kids.

In my last post, Herbal Essence and I were talking about reasons why guys our age get married. The reasons are really about oops pregnancies, desperation and loneliness, and pressure from their girlfriends and families. I realized there’s another reason to add to the list, freaking out from minor health issues. Imagine someone my age or a bit younger. He’s been healthy all his life so he hasn’t had much in the way of health problems. Then the first health problem happens. It’s not worse than say appendicitis. However, this is this man’s first experience with surgery. While it’s not a big deal as health problems go, but it’s the first health problem for this man. It’s a shock. It makes him feel his age and his eventual mortality. He might start thinking about what happens to him when he’s older and the thought of having dementia in a nursing home with no one to check up on him scares him. Out of fear he rushes to find a wife so he can have some kids who will look after him when he’s older.

Of course this can and does happen a lot to older men as well, but Herbal Essence were talking about guys our age. Whether we’re talking about guys my age or older guys, the problem is the same. A man feels his age for whatever reason and starts getting worried what will happen when he gets old. Invariably the answer involves kids to take care of you or keeps tabs on you. Because he wants to raise the kids right he has to get married (places like the Rotunda clinic in India notwithstanding). Will this work? Maybe. Maybe not. Nursing homes are filled with people who were dumped there by their kids who never check up on them. If you get divorced you will be right back where you started if you don’t have kids. If you do good luck since your now ex-wife is guaranteed to get full custody of them. If you try marrying a single mother later in life do you really think her kids are going to care about you when you get older? They will be gone. (Scott Adams is going to learn this the hard way.)

Knowing this it becomes clear that kids are no guarantee of help when you get old. Since most actions of “I’m getting old so I need to get married and have kids” are based on fear, a logical argument like the one I wrote in the paragraph above will do little good for most men. This is why anti-aging technology is important. When I talk about anti-aging technology, I’m talking about real technology, not snake oil nor stuff that makes you look younger but doesn’t stop aging (like plastic surgery). I’m talking about technology that could potentially let you live for centuries or even indefinitely with the body of a 30 year old (although I’m sure there are limits to what it can do). (Some good websites for learning for about anti-aging technology research are the Methuselah Foundation and the SENS Foundation.)

How many men are getting married now because they’re worried what will happen to them when they’re old? Quite a few I bet and that includes men who know marriage is a bad idea. Anti-aging technology removes this problem because when you get old, you’re body won’t be old. Even if it does nothing but keep you in the body of a 30 year old until you drop dead at 120, it removes the problem since you no longer have to worry about being old, frail, and having dementia.

When anti-aging technology arrives, it’s going to kill one of the last remaining reasons men have for getting married.

A couple of posts ago the question of whether there is really a church that isn’t feminized came up. Despite some protests to the contrary the Catholic church is feminized which is why I don’t attend mass anymore. A long time ago I looked at the protestants and they had many of the same problems and a few new ones since like the Catholic church they are also feminized.

A lot of people will claim that their church is not feminized because of opposition to abortion and gay marriage. This does not mean a thing. It has nothing to do with men. The right question to ask is how the church in question views and deals with men and how they treat women’s sins. In that regard finding a non-feminized church is damned near impossible if not impossible. The Catholic Church hands out annulments like candy legitimizing women divorcing their husbands. Plus they have divorce support groups. Many churches preach “male leadership” but all “male leadership” means is that any sin a woman commits is the fault and responsibility of her husband. Even supposedly “conservative” churches are feminized.

The most promising thing I have heard is about the Orthodox church and this link Novaseeker provided. However, I’m still skeptical. If you read the comments to post that inspired this post, then you will know that it isn’t that simple. Apparently the Greek Orthodox have a problem but if they do why not the rest of the Orthodox? Even if the Orthodox aren’t feminized yet is that because they are resistant to it or because they are not on the radar screen yet? The reason why the Catholic church gets a lot of BS from feminists is not because the Catholic church isn’t feminized. It’s because the Catholic church is a large target, and feminists go after the Catholic church for the same reason bank robbers rob banks. That’s where the money is. In addition it’s a huge argument about how to best hold the whip over men/how to best extract money and resources from men. Both sides are anti-male. My understanding is that the Greek Orthodox church is the largest of the Orthodox churches in North America which would mean that it would make sense for it to be the first of the Orthodox churches to be feminized.

If I was to go to an Orthodox church what would they think of someone like me who is a 32 year old single man? Am I just going to get a lot of shaming language about not being married? About how I’m “lazy”? Or “refuse to grow up” or “man up”? Or are they going to think I’m gay? Because these “conservative” churches claim to be “pro-marriage” (which they really aren’t) all that means is that I’m going to get a lot of BS shaming language about making the sensible decision to avoid getting married.

Since the original post came about because Sabrina was trying to drag me to church all of a sudden the issue came up about an unmarried woman sleeping with her boyfriend having no problem receiving the Eucharist, the question came up of how seriously is sexual morality taken by the Orthodox church. This link describes the problem. To teenagers the Catholic and Protestant churches preach total abstinence before marriage. Once you become an adult that changes to no messages about staying a virgin to the point that anyone who talks about taking virginity seriously as an adult they get shouted down with a barrage of shaming language and twisting of scripture. (Clearly I’m not in a position to make this argument anymore but it’s tied up with churches being feminized so I have to discuss it.) Even if the Orthodox priests preach a consistent position on this regardless of age what about the rank and file? There are plenty of Catholic women who go to church every week or close to every week who were slutting it up the night before. I have trouble believing the Orthodox church is full of female virgins. (In general, there seems to be this idea that somewhere there is a place where there’s lots of female virgins. I don’t believe it exists.) I’m sure women in the Orthodox church put out like women everywhere. (This isn’t a problem but I would like to know what I’m dealing with.)

The case that the Orthodox church isn’t feminized is compelling but I’m not sure I buy it. There’s too much of this “all those other churches are feminized but not MY church”. Why shouldn’t I believe it’s the same everywhere?

At Hidden Leaves, I found this story about a mom who is way too involved (because she is involved at all) in trying to find her son a woman. If this works for the son it will only be because he was on TV. Comments like does this guy own his balls or his mom have already been made so I don’t feel the need to revisit them. What got me about this story was how it made me think of what would happen if my mom tried to get involved in finding me a woman. It scares me to think what my mom would find for me if she found anyone at all. If I was lucky these women would be half right for me but the half wrong part would be a disaster. More importantly my mom doesn’t understand what has happened between men and women in the last several decades despite being a part of the problem in some ways. (She lived through the 60s.)

I’m glad I live hundreds of miles away from my mom. She might be inclined to try something like the woman in the link although I suspect she would just bother me more about finding a girlfriend. My mom (and my dad) don’t even know about Sabrina. They didn’t know about Kristen or Rachel either. I don’t tell my parents about Sabrina because that will give them false hope that I will become a “normal person”, get married, and give them grandkids. None of that is going to happen with marriage 2.0 being in place. My parents don’t talk about this subject that often but next time they do I think I will shock them by telling them about the Rotunda Clinic in India that will take a man’s sperm with a surrogate mother in India and produce a kid. I doubt it’s what my parents had in mind for grandkids. (I don’t mean the racial aspect. That doesn’t matter to them.)

I would like to remind everyone that this blog is a pussy pass free zone. No woman gets a pussy pass here. I don’t even give out pussy passes IRL.

Sabrina doesn’t even get a pussy pass from me, and she has sex with me. Recently I had an argument with Sabrina (the details are unimportant), and I refused to let her control the language and terms of the argument. And yes it worked in every way you can imagine.

This weekend Sabrina made me baked ziti for dinner. When I say she made it, we’re talking no shortcuts, no instant baked ziti, but cooking from family recipes that go back generations. This got me thinking again about how few women my age and younger know how to cook. I have lucked out in that the women I have been with had cooking skills. My women have cooked for me all sorts of things.

I have to wonder how the women who don’t know how to cook eat. I suppose they know who to use a microwave maybe. Of course, they probably think they should get taken out to really expensive restaurants every night because they have gold platinum plated vaginas. Anything else is outright misogyny.

Wherever I go now, its clear that men know how to cook. Sure most men aren’t going to be great chefs (although the best chefs in the world are almost always men), but everyone needs to eat so it helps to have some skills in this area. Men recognize this for what it is, A BASIC LIFE SKILL that a competent adult should be able to handle. It’s unbelievable that women expect to be taken seriously when missing such a basic life skill.

Since I am a STD Co-Futurist of the Year, here’s a prediction. The next generation of women or the generation of women after that will not even be able to prepare cereal. Yes, pouring cereal into a bowl followed by pouring milk into a bowl will not be skill most women of the next generation or the generation after will possess. After all, only an a misogynist with an evil rape tool attached to him would suggest than women should know how to prepare cereal. Remember, you heard it here first.

Most of these are herb men being forced by their wives to buy a house bigger than they need, just to ‘keep up with the Joneses’. Just to correct back to the level of the 1990s, Mortgage debt has to shrink from 70% to 45% of GDP, which would mean a loss of $3 Trillion. This will take all the way until 2020 or 2025.

We keep seeing article about how ‘divorces are delayed due to the economy’. This means that the woman does not want to divorce when the net worth is negative (since she would get half of the debt, rather than the customary half of a positive net worth).

The good news is that homeowners will be locked into a negative net worth for the next decade or more (which I have been warning about since 2006), making many women stay in marriages they would otherwise have ended. By the time they are back to a positive net worth, a lot of women who live in houses today will be well past their Wile E. Coyote moment. They will have invested their 30s in a situation of their own making that produced no net worth.

So this is an example of the costs of misandry transferring back to women (and rightly so).

No kidding. The Washington Post recently had an article about these problems divorcing couples are facing. There are couples who would be separated on their way to getting a divorce living together while they get their divorce. The house the couple owns can’t be sold to split the assets because the mortgage on the house is more than it is worth. Beyond that there are no assets to split in a lot of these cases. Usually, when we think of divorce, there is some split of joint assets allowing the woman to “cash out” of the marriage. That’s nearly impossible in a lot of cases since if the couple has more debt than assets, there are no assets to divide. Instead of cashing out, the debt is being divided.

Some women will forgo divorce. Others will do it anyway. Either way they are more likely to have the costs of their own misandry transferred back on them.

Mr. Fischer says that he is not running against his wife because of the protection order but because of how the Democrats have handled the economy, health care, and the stimulus. He said:

I figured if I’m going to be on my own, then I’m going to have to do what suits me. I’m standing up for people who lost their job. I don’t think they’re being represented fairly in this state because they do not take care of the working man.

This state legislature race is a microcosm of many of the issues that we write about, the mancession, the false abuse industry, etc. John Fischer has not let all of the things his (presumably soon to be ex-) wife and the state have done to him stop him. Despite being forced from his home, he is fighting back in his own way.

Oh look. You found a slut with low standards to cater to your filthy desires.

As you can tell “Monica” and “Liz” came here as a result of Susan Walsh’s blog. “Diane” probably did so as well, but I can’t tell for sure. All of them came here days after I was banned from Susan Walsh’s blog. As Alkibiades put it, that place is a pig sty. I am happy to stay out of it, but Susan Walsh’s readers think they can come over here and post with impunity saying all manner of crap about me. If I get any more comments from them they automatically go into the moderation queue. Most likely I will let them through because I am more than happy to give them enough rope to hang themselves. I’m sure “Monica”, “Liz”, and “Diane” are very angry about this and fail to see their own hypocrisy. I have no idea where they came up with this BS. I actually had to check Susan Walsh’s blog to see if she actually accused me of hacking the comments on her blog. As crazy as Susan is, she isn’t that crazy. If you really thought I was making up Sabrina (or Kristen or Rachel) then why come here at all, much less post about it? It doesn’t affect their lives. What’s really going on is that they want to paint me as a virgin since it’s a disaster of epic proportions if it turns out that a blow job (or several blow jobs) doesn’t cause a man to stop caring about his rights. It didn’t work on me, and that makes me a threat. In reality, the amount a man is getting laid doesn’t matter with respect to his understanding of his rights.

Not only are “Monica”, “Liz”, and “Diane” hypocrites, but they’re parasites in a way as well (and probably other ways too). They can think they can effectively take my work and use it for their purposes, attacking me in this case. I realized this angle when I was reading the latest post over at Virgin at 50’s blog where he talks about the email he gets. He describes one of the groups that sends him email as, “Semi-literate rants from feminists, reeking with the stench of sociopathy. With spittle dripping from herpetic encrusted lips, they point a gnarled stump of a finger at me and screech ‘pathetic’ and ‘creepy'”. Again why are these women bothering? Some random blog about a 50 year old virgin isn’t going to affect their lives.

He goes on to talk about how women would rather have sex with convicts and homeless men rather than him. What’s even better is the next thing he says:

I own a business that provides jobs. I created those jobs out of nothing. I know how to create things, build things, and fix things. Without guys like me, females would be shivering in dark, dank caves, wondering why there’s nothing to eat.

Feminists say that I’m pathetic, which is like a tapeworm calling its host pathetic. I say that a society in which females value convicts and the homeless more than they value a man who creates jobs is not only a pathetic society but a dying society.

Let me be the first to spit on its grave.

Be sure to read it a few times so the massive amount of truth sinks in. There are people out there who act like I’m nuts when I show the connections between socialist policies and the current state of male-female relationships and interaction. This again gets to the heart of how for many women, they want you (if you’re a man) to go away, but not you’re income stream. Socialism allows them to attempt to do this so you should be able to see the connection. In essence its a war on productive men (which itself is a good definition for socialism).

There are those of you out there who will say that the only reason this guy is saying this is because he can’t get laid. This is code purple shaming language. Also, I am saying this too, and I am getting laid so that has nothing to do with it. Even for us men who can get laid plenty we still recognize the problem. I didn’t stop being productive just because I got laid multiple times. This is just as much a problem for me as it is for virgin at 50.

This comes from the female attitude that we have heard over and over again, “what’s mine is mine and what’s his is mine”. Women have scaled this up to the national level too, and that attitude is what we are seeing here whether its through socialist policies to steal wealth from men or through emails and comments on blogs.

If you go to the blog of a socialist and start posting economic facts, the socialist will eventually ban you because they don’t facts interfering with their delusion. I was banned from Susan Walsh’s blog, the same Susan Walsh who said that I’m a dick and incapable of treating women like anything other than “cum dumpsters”, in much the same manner. Its even a more apt comparison since Susan Walsh has no understanding of economics, just like socialists, despite having gone to Wharton. When I read that I was banned, I couldn’t help but laugh. I’m surprised she didn’t ban me sooner. I’m a real threat to her ideology, not in what I say despite bringing some facts to her blog, but I can draw directly on my own life experiences such as my experiment to show she is wrong. While I’m surprised that I wasn’t banned sooner, I’m not that surprised that it happened right now.

One side thing that happened was that I took on one of her readers that is some type of Gloria Allred lawyer type in the Philippines. I objected to her characterization of Filipino men as dangerous animals that spend their days raping and beating women. She tried to claim this was true because women are “short” in her country, that there was a law called VAWC (violence against women and children) which didn’t even work, and an example of a guy with six mistresses (among other things). Of course, you should notice the similarity just in the NAME of the VAWC to VAWA. Anti-male misandrist laws have similar names wherever you go. The last thing she said to me was that I wasn’t interested in “dialog”. That was the only thing she was right about. As I said in a similar fashion in my piece on Triangulation, I am not interested in “dialog”, “compromise”, or “finding a middle ground”. All those terms mean (if they actually worked and history clearly says they don’t) only half many men would be ass raped in divorce court, only half as many men would be in jail because of the false rape industry, etc., and this is unacceptable. Most succinctly, “dialog” with someone or someones that are insane, drunk on power, & power hungry always means they will win. Thus we must reject it because there is no reason we should negotiate our freedom away. As Barry Goldwater said, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

There is guy who posted there who went by the name of Steveo. Steveo’s story was that he was about 30 and a sexless virgin. In his questioning of why this was happening, he came across the MRAsphere/MGTOWsphere/gamesphere. He realized either before or after about the injustice against men, and he is understandably angry about it. At Susan Walsh’s blog, Steveo got a whole lot of platitudes and other pro-female BS. Of course, Steveo knew enough to know it was mostly BS (even Obsidian and others noticed this) especially the parts that effectively assumed he was obese and smelly with crappy clothes. Steveo emailed me, and I have been talking to him. It’s clear that I have helped him more in one email than all of these pro-female morons on Susan Walsh’s blog could in months. I’m not sure what path Steveo will take in the short, medium, or long term, but I know I helped for real. And Steveo is not the only man I have helped. I get emails all the time from men in the same situation or similar situations to Steveo. It’s plenty of work responding to all of them, but I know I have helped for real. Susan Walsh says I have a new “follower”, but that just means she doesn’t understand men or what men are deciding to do in response to pervasive misandry. As a MGHOW I am doing what’s best for my life. Steveo now understands that he can GHOW, whatever his own way is since it may or may not be similar to my way, and doesn’t have to obey misandrists. The great sin I committed was that I made it so the morons on Susan Walsh’s blog don’t have their punching bag anymore.

Plenty of shaming language was also used against Steveo. Susan Walsh said about Steveo and guys like him, “I believe steveo’s sexual frustration drives his interest in the political aspect, as is often the case with MRA types, in my experience.” This of course is code tan shaming language. (Susan Walsh did try to claim she really didn’t mean that not getting laid is the only reason men talk about male injustice, but this was conveniently after when she banned me.) There’s plenty of anti-male shaming language going on there, not the least of which is how Susan Walsh tries to claim what women are going through (i.e. feeling bad and seeing women get together with alphas) with what men are going through. This is absurd, and she denied it, but after I showed an example of this false equivalence, I get banned. She can’t bury what she said when I’m around.

In all this talk about Steveo, one thing that came up was all of the monetary transfers done by government were disenfranchising guys like Steveo, similar to what I talked about here. Susan Walsh denied such a thing was relevant to Steveo’s situation, but it is. Hungry Hungry Hippos disproved this. More importantly, it reveals that Susan Walsh has no understanding of economics whatsoever. She even said about this, “transfer of wealth from the govt. to women”. The government has no wealth of its own. It only has what it gets in taxes (and loans) both of which have come from men not a magic money tree.

Also, revealing her lack of understanding of economics Susan Walsh asked me this, but banned me before I could answer, perhaps to prevent me from posting an answer there:

I have a question for you re the transfer of wealth. As we know, women are outpacing men in education, and catching up rapidly in earning power. The Pew report said that in 22% of marriages, the woman earns more than the man. This is up from 4% in 1970. This trend is expected to continue. What will be the impact on men as the wealth transfer slowly evolves to women supporting other women?

There are plenty of economic fallacies here. I suggest you don’t play a drinking game of spot the economic fallacies in Susan Walsh’s question, otherwise you will pass out quickly. Women are “outpacing” men in education. As we all know there are a big difference between degrees in engineering, the sciences, liberal arts, women’s studies, etc. With much of the “education” these women are receiving (which isn’t really an education, but a credentialation), all that is happening is indoctrination. If it weren’t for government jobs and government derived jobs, these women’s degrees would be useless (given the rapidly increasing nature of student loans they already are arguably), and they would be saying, “Would you like fries with that?” Women are catching up in earning power only in that men are having their jobs (which are real, wealth producing jobs) destroyed by government policies to favor women. What this means is that there will never be a wealth transfer from women to women. As the mancession continues, and men’s wealth producing jobs are destroyed by the government there is a shrinking tax base. It’s not a coincidence that the mancession happened at the same time as greater than a trillion dollar federal deficits. Watch as those deficits become multi-trillion dollar deficits. With so many women dependent on government jobs or jobs sucking off the government teat, the tax base is continually shrinking. It’s not sustainable the only reason it’s still going now are the loans given to the government. As we know this increasingly means bonds sold to foreigners particularly the Chinese. You won’t have women transferring wealth to women, but Chinese men and other foreign men transferring wealth to American women. Of course, the Chinese aren’t going to fund our deficits much longer. Even if they wanted to, they are physically unable to do so. Combine this with the Tea Parties who are very angry about the platinum plated salaries, benefits, and pensions that government workers are getting, and we are not that far away from government being forced to shrink, and this means lots of unemployed women. Expect some major battles as these women will fight it tooth and nail.

It has been pointed out that most women have no understanding of supply and demand so Susan Walsh’s failure to understand economics is not surprising except that she went to Wharton. However, it has been shown that at the time she went (early 80s) their affirmative action program was desperate for women, any woman. Even knowing that, you would think that Susan Walsh would have learned at least a few basics about economics by osmosis being at Wharton if nothing else. It just goes to show that she was at Wharton due to affirmative action, and that’s probably true about her subsequent jobs too.

Susan Walsh said that I am not seeking an “emotional connection” with a woman, and thus I “don’t belong” on her blog. How would she know? Most women aren’t offering such a thing so its clear that Susan Walsh doesn’t understand cause and effect either. It’s just like when she said that I can only relate to women as “cum dumpsters”. If that is the case (and the same that I’m not looking for an “emotional connection”) then the reason why I am successful with women now is because I treat women like “cum dumpsters” and don’t look for “emotional connections” with women. You can decide for yourself if I treat women like “cum dumpsters”.

Susan Walsh says I would like nothing more than for her blog to self destruct. It doesn’t matter what I want or don’t want since her blog has already failed completely at its stated mission, helping women find relationships. The blog self destructing is immaterial. These women are hetero and presumably monogamous so that means relationships with men and one man for each woman. The problem is that Susan Walsh is refusing to honestly describe what is happening to men. Why would men want to get into relationships with these women? Look at what is happening with divorce, sexual harassment, the mancession and all the other issues feminism causes to men. Increasingly with VR sex, more onerous laws, less jobs, less men are going to want and/or be able to get into relationships, but on Susan Walsh’s blog men are treated as an object or an accessory, not human beings with their own thoughts and desires. Let’s look at what my colleague at The Spearhead, Welmer, had to say about having women in his life now:

It goes back and forth. Sometimes I feel I still do, but when I think about the potential harm they can do, I’m not sure it’s worth it. When my ex went on her rampage and I filed for divorce and custody, dozens of women came out of the woodwork to condemn me, including several I’d never even met or heard of and many I hadn’t met more than a couple times (she dragged in all of her high school friends, family, and even parents’ neighbors). Only one woman – an aunt – stood up for me unconditionally. What this taught me is that when it counts, women can be guaranteed to side with women — especially when the women are behaving terribly.

If a man even just seen one experience like this (and many, many men have seen examples of women always siding with women no matter how noxious their behavior) why would he want to get in a relationship with a woman? At that point the only thing is getting laid, and for a lot of men that isn’t even worth it.

I had also uncovered how Susan Walsh thinks feminism is all about casual sex and nothing else. What is happening to men as a result of feminism is something Susan Walsh completely ignores. It’s relevant because why would men want to get into relationships with women that listen to her? It also shows how Susan Walsh is similar to conservative female supremacist women. CFS women are “against” feminism, but their only real argument against feminist is abortion (and maybe gay marriage) to the point of claiming that feminism is all about abortion and that men benefit from feminism. This is because CFS women agree with 99% of the feminist agenda. They are female supremacist just like the feminists, but with a minor disagreement. Susan Walsh is similar in that she has a minor disagreement with the Jessica Valenti stream of feminism. Again Susan Walsh denied everything that is happening to men like CFS women when she said, “casual sex is feminism”.

This gets to the heart of the matter. Women progressively get worse forgetting more and more than men are human beings. The alternatives to women such as VR sex appear and get better and better. Already you have men ghosting and semi-ghosting playing video games instead of having anything to do with women. Video games don’t even claim to replace women in any way like VR sex would. That’s how “bad” it is already for the women that listen to Susan Walsh. However, I have said everything I can say about this, and it’s not my problem.